Showing posts with label Gospel of Mark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gospel of Mark. Show all posts

Thursday, August 21, 2025

A Jungian psychologist decides that the Gospel of Mark ends without resurrection, on purpose, but apparently he has never read the damn thing lol


 The Transcendent Absence: Mark's Unresurrected Christ and the Creative Imperative

... Mark's unresurrected Christ ... The absence of resurrection in Mark's Gospel . . ..                                                                                                                                                                                                    

There's just one little problem with these statements: They are falsehoods. The text says Jesus rose.

Everyone agrees that Mark's "narrative rupture" occurs at the close of 16:8.

But the resurrection occurs before that:

And entering into the sepulchre, [the women] saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you [in Mark 14:28]. 

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. 

-- Mark 16:5-8

The endings after this are obviously supplied based on internal evidence of language and style which differ from Mark's. And their variety is a sign that something was felt to be wanting from a very early time. External evidence shows the gospel ending at 16:8 in two famous codices from the fourth century: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. And Matthew and Luke and John in their turn each supply their own fuller accounts, some of the elements of which resemble the endings supplied to Mark. 

The twice promised resurrection appearance in Galilee in Mark is perhaps the most wanting thing. Simply on that basis it strains credulity to think Mark intended the ending to be 16:8. The composition is unfinished, or was early on damaged. 

But the resurrection is not missing from this abruptly ending gospel. One cannot speak of an unresurrected Christ in Mark. One cannot say there is no resurrection in Mark. It's right there in verse six.

Meanwhile we are told that "the sacred emerges through collective human action rather than through divine intervention", and that "the kingdom of God exists only insofar as we create it through revolutionary praxis within history's unfolding".

Unfortunately for the author, Brian Nuckols, Mark's Jesus doesn't believe any of that hooey.

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

-- Mark 1:15

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. 

-- Mark 9:1   

Wednesday, June 25, 2025

Gospel claims forty years removed and more from Jesus' resurrection are not the same thing as claims which are "only a short time later"

Michael C. Legaspi  

 ... Like most New Testament scholars, she holds Mark to be the earliest Gospel (composed sometime around the year 70), with Matthew and Luke—both of whom use Mark as a source ­document—coming along a generation later. John, independent of the other three, came later still. ... 

Pagels’s own position is that the question of Jesus’s resurrection goes beyond what a historian can say: “Historical evidence can neither prove nor disprove the reality”; it can only verify that “after Jesus died many people claimed to have seen him alive.”

Pagels is not entirely wrong. The evidence that Jesus was put to death—actually killed, in public, on a cross, by the governing ­authority—and that many people claimed, only a short time later, that they saw the same Jesus alive cannot seriously be doubted. ...              

 

Nice try, but no. 

We do not know that many people claimed that they saw Jesus alive "only a short time later". 

Pagels' claim to fame has been all about making this very kind of chronological error, placing later Gnostic sources on the same level as the New Testament as evidence to argue for multiple Christianities and their legitimacy. That Legaspi shrinks from calling her out on that tells you everything you need to know about Legaspi.

The only sense in which it is true that the modern phenomenon of scholarship is "now in retreat" is in the extent to which scholars like Pagels and her reviewer Legaspi themselves retreat from the critical project.  

Meanwhile in A.D. 69, around the time of the composition of Mark, many dreamers thought Nero had come back from the dead, too, but just because they existed doesn't mean we take them seriously or believe them, any more than Tacitus did, whose case proves yet again that human nature is unchanging, a mixture of credulity and incredulity from time immemorial:

... About this time Achaia and Asia Minor were terrified by a false report that Nero was at hand. Various rumours were current about his death; and so there were many who pretended and believed that he was still alive. The adventures and enterprises of the other pretenders I shall relate in the regular course of my work. The pretender in this case was a slave from Pontus, or, according to some accounts, a freedman from Italy, a skilful harp-player and singer, accomplishments, which, added to a resemblance in the face, gave a very deceptive plausibility to his pretensions. After attaching to himself some deserters, needy vagrants whom he bribed with great offers, he put to sea. Driven by stress of weather to the island of Cythnus, he induced certain soldiers, who were on their way from the East, to join him, and ordered others, who refused, to be executed. He also robbed the traders and armed all the most able-bodied of the slaves. ... Thence the alarm spread far and wide, and many roused themselves at the well-known name, eager for change, and detesting the present state of things. The report was daily gaining credit when an accident put an end to it. ...

-- Tacitus, Histories 2.8 

 

Monday, March 3, 2025

Evidently both J. D. Vance and his pope are so embarrassed by a nature miracle in Mark's Gospel that they feel they have to misrepresent it


 

Or is it just USA Today?

Who knows.

I highlight the obvious misrepresentations.

Can anyone read anymore?

Here:

Vance quoted at length from a Francis homily in March 2020 about a passage from the book of Mark about Jesus being in a boat with his disciples. A storm caught the group off guard by an unexpected and turbulent storm, which left them disoriented and in need of comfort.

Jesus slept for the only time mentioned in the gospels. When he awakens after the storm has passed, the disciples ask why he wasn’t concerned if they perished.

“Indeed, once they call on Him, He saves his disciples from their discouragement,” Vance quoted Francis as saying. “The storm exposes our vulnerability and uncovers our faults and superfluous certainties around which we have constructed our daily schedules, our projects, our habits and priorities.”

“We deprive ourselves of the antibodies we need to confront adversity,” Vance added.

 

What absolute tosh. 

Do these people ever look up anything?

The storm hadn't passed. It was raging. They were going to die. He was sleeping. They wake him. He commands the storm to stop. It stops. They are amazed. He was upset at their faithlessness.

They were saved from being killed by an actual storm, not from some stupid, introspective-conscience-of-the-west-like existential angst imported into the text from our cowardly, post-Christian, 21st century dull humanitarian consensus which cannot say what a woman is and can't even bring itself to call things what they actually are, such as that a man posing as a woman is a man posing as a woman.

Are we surprised that the same people who deliberately misrepresent their foundational book misrepresent also who is the dictator destroying Ukraine and who started the war?

And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?  

-- Mark 4:37ff. 

Wednesday, December 25, 2024

Mark's Jesus eschews signs, so it makes sense that Mark omits any mention of Jesus' nativity such as Matthew and Luke have relying on Isaiah


 

 The virgin birth, according to Isaiah, is a sign, after all.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign [σημεῖον -- LXX]; Behold, a virgin [παρθένος -- LXX] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 

-- Isaiah 7:14

Behold, a virgin [παρθένος] shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.  

-- Matthew 1:23

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign [σημεῖον] unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

-- Luke 2:11f.

There shall no sign [σημεῖον] be given unto this generation.

-- Mark 8:12

 


Sunday, April 7, 2024

Touch me not for I am not yet ascended, or Today shalt thou be with me in paradise?


 

The problem of the resurrected but not yet ascended Jesus telling Mary not to touch him but encouraging Thomas to do so in John 20 is hardly the only problem with John's death and resurrection narrative about Jesus. 

John never even gives us the promised ascension at all, despite all the talk in that gospel of the descending and ascending Son of Man.

The absence is not unique to John, however, which tells us that the thinking about all this was, if not fluid, at least not fully formed at the time.

Luke does not reconcile the ascension stories he himself tells in Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9 with the words of Christ from the cross which he alone records, which imply that Jesus simply expected at death to go to heaven immediately, not to rise from the dead and ascend later, let alone descend into hell in the interim.

Compare Luke's Lazarus, who dies and goes to the bosom of Abraham, while the rich man who ignored him dies and goes to hell (Luke 16:22ff.). This is what is supposed to happen, right? There is no resurrection until "the last day", as Martha informs us (John 11:24). Everybody knows that! But then John's Jesus raises her brother anyway.

And like Matthew's I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world (28:20), the resurrected Jesus in John 21 never really exits the world either. He can appear at any time and say Follow me. Even to one untimely born (I Corinthians 15:8).

Matthew's Jesus doesn't leave in an ascension. He is always present.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. 

-- Matthew 18:20

The ending supplied to Mark 16, however, agrees with Luke that Jesus ascended to heaven and sat on the right hand of God. Its fascination with signs done by those who believe echos the early Christian history recounted by Luke in Acts, and doubtlessly comes from that part of the tradition and is not originally Marcan. Mark's Jesus eschews signs absolutely (Mark 8:12).

 

And [the other malefactor] said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. 

-- Luke 23:42f.

Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 

-- John 19:32f.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.  

-- John 20:17


Thursday, December 22, 2022

At Christmas thoughts do not naturally turn to Mary's crazy, problem child of the Gospel of Mark

Bart Ehrman, December 2014, here:

Mark does not narrate an account of Jesus’ birth. Mark never says a word about Jesus’ mother being a virgin. Mark does not presuppose that Jesus had an unusual birth of any kind. And in Mark (you don’t find this story in Matthew and Luke!!), Jesus’ mother does not seem to know that he is a divinely born son of God. On the contrary, she thinks he has gone out of his mind. Mark not only lacks a virgin birth story; it seems to presuppose that they [sic] never could have been a virgin birth. Or Mary would understand who Jesus is. But she does not.

It’s no wonder that when Matthew and Luke took over so many of the stories of Mark, they decided, both of them, *not* to take over Mark 3:20-21. They had completely different view of Jesus’ mother and his birth.

Saturday, June 22, 2019

The supplied ending to Mark's gospel seems to cover all the bases of the resurrection appearances, but for one thing

Codex Vaticanus has Mark end with 16:8
It has an appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary Magdalene (16:9), an appearance to the two traveling, presumably on the road to Emmaus as in Luke (16:12), and to the eleven disciples who are all together at a meal (16:14), but it is completely lacking an appearance to the disciples and Peter in Galilee predicted by the angel in the first place!

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

-- Mark 16:7

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Phil Jenkins says some silly things about the Gospel of Mark


It’s obvious to assume that Mark, a skilled and thoughtful writer, did not mean to end the book thus, and that an original ending has been lost. But that is where the story gets puzzling. If we assume the standard theory of the composition of the gospels, then Mark wrote about 70. Perhaps a quarter century afterwards, his book was used by both Matthew and Luke, who incorporated virtually his whole text, and it is clear that neither author knew any other or fuller ending. If an ending was lost, it vanished very early indeed, if it was ever written. At least by the second century, various editors added their own conclusions to satisfy what they felt to be the gaping hole at the end of Mark, and one survives in the KJV as Mark 16.8-20. ...

If it really was meant to end at 16:8, Mark may be the greatest anti-Christian, anti-Jesus movement, tract ever written. It could scarcely have been so highly regarded as it was, still less accepted as the basis of other traditions. ...


It’s very likely indeed that the next scene would have been something very much like John 21, with a Resurrection appearance (a) to Peter (b) in Galilee. If the ending of Mark’s gospel actually did exist and then was lost, this is presumably just what it would have looked like. (Rudolf Bultmann was one famous scholar who argued this).

-------------------------------

First of all, Mark is not a "skilled" writer. His Greek is everywhere clumsy, as John C. Meagher noted long ago, may he rest in peace. The almost laughable uses of kai, euthus, and gar represent just three examples well known to students of Mark's style, if it can be dignified as style. Mark has some facility with Greek as a second language, and evidently is using it to communicate to a special audience of similarly situated individuals, perhaps in Rome.

Matthew and Luke "incorporated virtually his whole text", but not in the verbatim manner this suggests. Those authors frequently change details of Mark's content, and improve upon his Greek significantly. This means they are correcting Mark as much as they are using him.

The absence of a proper ending which then fails to show up in Matthew and Luke indeed shows the early absence of the ending, but it is also another reason why Matthew and Luke felt the need to write their own compositions. They believed Mark to be inadequate, and inadequate on a number of levels. Luke especially shares this attitude about the inadequacy of the previous accounts with which he is familiar, and presumably "John" would not have written his account subsequent to the Synoptics if he thought they were adequate, else he had not departed from them so radically.

The use of Mark as architecture for composition by Matthew and Luke pays respect to Mark, it is granted, but was Mark really "so highly regarded"? The dearth of early manuscript evidence for Mark speaks against it. A highly regarded gospel would be copied more often from the beginning, and more copies would survive from that time than do.

Finally, the suggestion that what we have at the end of John, as hinted at by the Gospel of Peter, constitutes what is missing from Mark is plausible. However, students of the Fourth Gospel know that John is not a unity either. The prologue, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the final chapter all look like additions, which means that the narrative ending we are looking for in Mark has its basis only in material which is itself mainly the phenomenon of later editorial activity, some of which was not canonized. Not firm ground to stand on.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Piles of Rocks






















The usual custom without which the worship service rarely begins is the Invocation of God's presence, as if in gathering God will come to be present in a way in which he is not normally. Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Mt.18:20). Even in an evangelical church where Pauline sentiments such as Acts 17:28 might receive more attention (In him we live, and move, and have our being), one will hear the congregation admonished to prepare their hearts to enter into God's presence and "to let all mortal flesh keep silence before him." It is still amusing to me that in one such church where I recently heard the latter as a call to worship, the congregation proceeded to do no such thing. Instead they all got on their feet and started to make a joyful noise unto the Lord for about twenty-five minutes, non-stop.

To the nomadic patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the presence of God was commemorated in various places where it had been keenly experienced in dreams, usually with piles of stones made into altars. And he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down to sleep. And Jacob rose up early and took the stone and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. 'And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house' (Gen. 28:11,18,22). To Moses, God lived and revealed himself in fire on a holy mountain, a rather larger pile of such stones. To the children of the Exodus fleeing Egypt, he inhabited the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. After they were given the Law and the instructions to build an ark and a tabernacle where God said he would meet with thee and commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony (Exodus 25:22), the Israelites piled up stones to mark the spot in the middle of the river Jordan where the ark of the covenant had tarried (Joshua 4:9) to enable them to pass through on dry ground to the other side. The ark thereupon figured prominently in the collapse of an exceptionally impressive pile of rocks, formidably assembled as walls to protect the inhabitants of Jericho.

Years later King David wanted God to have a more permanent house like his own house of cedar, but it was his son Solomon who would build for God and his ark a more lasting pile of rocks in Jerusalem, despite his conviction that not even the universe which God had made was capable of containing him (1 Kings 8:27). Solomon's skepticism seems to have stopped there, and he leaves no record of doubt that God used the ark as his footstool.

The innermost part of this temple contained this ark, and as with the innermost part of the tabernacle, it was therefore thought to be a very dangerous place. As God had appeared in the cloud upon the mercy seat above the ark in the tabernacle (Leviticus 16:2), the cloud of God's presence also filled Solomon's temple, driving out the priests (1 Kings 8:10-11). The place where it did so was also called the holy of holies, God's resting place, and it was forbidden for anyone to enter into it on pain of death, except the high priest, and this but once a year, on the day of atonement. A later conqueror found this innermost place of the sanctuary rebuilt after the Babylonian Exile oddly vacant. Pompey the Great was famously nonplussed by the experience, and was not immediately struck down dead for his transgression, as previous transgressors of the ark's holiness had been (2 Samuel 6:6f.). It would seem that God had by then made an exodus of his own. Probably lost when Solomon's temple had been destroyed, the fate of the ark of the covenant still fires imaginations.

The Fourth Gospel records (John 2:19) that Jesus had said he could rebuild the then extraordinarily impressive Herodian temple in three days' time, if someone were but to destroy it (a saying hurled back at Jesus on the cross in mockery by bystanders, according to Matthew, but without justification, in his opinion). Jesus had more than once insisted that faith, even faith as tiny as the diminutive mustard seed, is capable of doing almost unimaginable things, even picking up a mountain (yet one more big pile of rocks) and casting it into the sea (Mt.17:20; 21:21). Despite the context of the cleansing of the Jewish Temple, John's opinion in 2:21 was that Jesus spake of the temple of his body, not of the real one. And so in fulfillment of this, the giant boulder blocking Jesus' tomb had to make way for the abolition even of death (John 20:1). John's Son of Man rises from the dead to ascend up where he was before (6:62) in order to prepare a place for you (14:2) and from where he will send the Spirit who shall be in you (14:17) and abide with you for ever (14:16). Gone is the apocalyptic Son of Man from Mark's Gospel. Gone is the imminent end of the world.

Instead, Peter, The Rock (Matthew 16:18), shall lead the new Israel, the church. He will obey the threefold command of Jesus in the closing chapter of John's Gospel and feed Jesus' sheep with the Bread of Life of John 6. In time, this would be equated with the Lord's Supper, despite the absence of a record of its institution in John. Once Christianity became a permitted religion under Constantine, the way was open for the rock-piling to begin anew, where sacraments could freely be dispensed.

Every parish soon had its church. Bishops eventually got magnificent cathedrals to mark the seats of their office. The Protestant Reformation later gave impetus to a new proliferation of buildings everywhere, and the force and vigor of sectarianism still plays out today in many places as even more churches go under construction, despite the new period of economic difficulties which confront the world, in which real estate of all kinds has played a defining role, and sits increasingly vacant.

Rocks, it seems, are inescapable elements in our lives, but we rarely think of them as such. We use them to make our roads. We then drive on these on vacation to see other more impressive piles of them. The Egyptian ones, carved into enormous blocks and arranged pyramidally as it were, still compel us. Writers resemble them, seeing that, as Johnson quipped, "no one but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Hence the ubiquity of the novel, and now of the blog, by beefwits all. Especially beautiful and rare small stones we'll pay handsomely for to adorn our true loves, who later divorce us and take us to the cleaners. Others we'll hunt and polish to expose their colorfulness, and display them on shelves, requiring dusting at intervals. Adventurers climb the tallest piles of them. When the snow melts, their remains are sometimes found. Others practice climbing walls of them as "sport." We have spent billions of dollars to send men to the moon to collect boxes full of them to bring back to this our Earth, which our humorists call the third rock from the sun. From its bowels do molten ones continuously spew forth, augmenting the land. We regularly elect boxes of them to represent us in Washington, which they do admirably, giving us the government we deserve. To others whose heads were so full of them that they killed themselves by accident we posthumously give Darwin awards. We still mark the places where we lay our dead with them, that we may find them and visit with them. Although "dumb as a rock" is a common slur, to warn people who live in glass houses not to throw them won't really do much to deprive us of the spectacle. We dig them out of the ground where they interfere with our vegetable gardens, and assemble them in pleasing arrangements elsewhere on our property. Hadrian used them to build his wall in Britain. China's version dwarfs it by comparison. The Ten Commandments were inscribed on them by the finger of God. Moses broke these. Backward societies still use them to kill their malefactors. Muslims make pilgrimage to and circumambulate one that fell from the sky. Their houses of worship everywhere in the world face in its direction, as do they five times a day when they pray. The five main tenants of their religion are called pillars. Scientists have believed a very large one similar to theirs hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. Some fear another one might do the same to us. Still others pray for this.

In times gone by, our own criminals we put to work breaking big ones into littler ones. And if you break them little enough, you will get the dust from which we were made, and to which we shall return, as sure as the day follows the night.

And Abraham answered and said, 'Behold now, I which am but dust and ashes have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord. . . .' And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place (Genesis 18:27, 33).

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Baptism and the Long Ending of Mark

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16a).

Among the Lutherans, this text is still appealed to, front and center, in support of baptism, as happened to an infant at the opening of a recent church service. This habit of citation is infelicitous, because the text comes from the long ending of Mark, which is not penned by the same person who wrote up through Mark 16:8. To go on quoting from this long ending simply will not do. It diverts the attention away from the topic at hand.

Whole academic careers have been made out of this problem of the ending of Mark. Suffice it to say that the internal and external evidence of the verses after vs. 8 have convinced all but the most stubborn defenders of the Textus Receptus that they were supplied, albeit from an early date. Why were they supplied? Because the want of an ending was felt. To end the Gospel in fear and in silence without a resurrection appearance in Galilee, as promised, just wouldn't do.

So what happened? There have been many proposals, of course, and we will probably never really know. Perhaps "Mark" never finished his work. But to suggest, as some have, that he intended to end there at vs. 8 for literary reasons just sounds crazy. Most of the New Testament was rightly dismissed as "Kleinliteratur" a long time ago. And that's being generous to Mark. I prefer to think his original got damaged, obviously at a very early date. The mucked up ending is just one of its many inadequacies which went on to be answered by Matthew, Luke and John.

As for texts to be read in support of baptism, especially infants, I nominate the stories in Acts 16, where Lydia, a seller of purple, believed and was baptized, "and her household" (vs. 15), and where the jailor was baptized, "he and all his, straightway" (vs. 33). Whether or not it is conceivable that infants can be inferred from the language, the concept of inclusiveness certainly shines forth, as in "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 19:14).

Sunday, August 2, 2009

The Son of Man

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you.

-- John 6:27

This line from today's Gospel lesson about Jesus the Bread of Life is noteworthy for its use of the title "Son of man."

In the Synoptic tradition the use of this title bristles with notions of the imminent end of the world, but that conception is wholly lacking in John's gospel. In the former it is thought to refer to a figure spoken of in the Book of Daniel:

And, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

-- Daniel 7:13-14

Consider Mark's gospel in particular.

In it Jesus introduces his ministry, saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" (1:15). In chapter 2, Jesus identifies himself as this Son of man, who has the power to forgive sins (vs. 10), and is Lord even of the Sabbath (vs. 28). Later in Mark 8:38 and 9:1 Jesus explicitly uses the Son of man imagery from Daniel of himself:

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. . . Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

The consummation of all things is so close in the imagination of Jesus in Mark that even at his trial he can say to the high priest, an unbeliever, that the high priest himself "shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (14:62).

In John, by contrast, what is imminent is the Son of man's return to heaven.

In future believers such as Nathanael "shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" (1:51). This same Son of man says, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (6:51). The prospect of it is a point of contention even among Jesus' closest followers: "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (6:61 f.). It is from this heavenly vantage point, he says, that "I will draw all men unto me" (12:32).

Some believe the latter conception is a rationalization in the wake of the failure of the former, and the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Altar a rationalization of that.

At least I do.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Missing the Point

In no church at the present day where the Lord's Supper is offered is there even a memory of its original meaning.

This is hardly surprising when one considers that the meaning of the meal was already being lost in the middle of the first century, less than three decades since the death of Jesus. Despite the efforts of modern scholarship to recover it, most notably at the hands of Albert Schweitzer over a century ago in The Quest of the Historical Jesus, the situation in the churches today remains pretty much as it was in the nineteenth century, to the end of which Schweitzer had summed up the situation. But we ourselves aren't just nineteenth century liberals in this regard. We are still first century Corinthians.

Far from being a meal whereby grace was thought to be transmitted to the believing recipient who now resided comfortably in the kingdom of God the church, the meal was instead supposed to represent an occasion for proclamation of a message marked by earnest expectation of something not yet realized, the presence of Jesus: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26). It was not a question of the Real Presence, but of the future presence. This longing for the Lord's imminent return had received its inspiration from the eschatological message of Jesus itself, but that message was already in the process of being reinterpreted and was losing its original force. Otherwise the Corinthians would not have inquired of Paul about it, as 1 Cor. 7:1 shows, and Paul would not have so replied.

Close inspection of the correspondence shows that Paul was disdainful of the demeanor of some of the Corinthians, based in part on the false assumption of some who thought that the kingdom of God had already come in some sense. Paul even mocks them for it: "And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you" (1 Cor. 4:7-8). But the fact was, they didn't reign, and neither did Paul. As far as Paul was concerned, all the posturing of the Corinthians amounted to nothing but words. If they wanted to see evidence of the kingdom of God, he would come and show it to them in his capacity as an apostle of Jesus Christ, not in words, but in power (1 Cor.4: 19-21). This would not be a meeting of equals, where the outlaw Josey Wales meets Ten Bears.

Eschatological urgency is about the last thing the church wants to talk about today. The subject is too embarrassing, because the data raise uncomfortable questions. This is why one will hardly ever hear a preacher speak candidly about Mark's gospel which introduces Jesus' proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom of God in explicitly eschatological terms: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15). The coming of the kingdom is so close, in fact, "that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power" (Mark 9:1). Jesus himself expects not to eat the Supper after having just instituted it "until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God" (Mark 14:25). A Jesus of this sort could be someone who never expected to found a church, let alone a sacrament to sustain it. And based upon the relentless unfolding of history and the stubborn failure of it to come to a close, such a Jesus might possibly have been mistaken that the coming kingdom was just around the corner. The church already had had to respond to such questions by the time of the composition of 2 Peter: "There shall come in the last days scoffers . . . saying 'Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation'" (3:3-4).

The rationalization of the data which is now routine in most of Christendom prattles on about "the already and the not yet," wanting to have it both ways because that's what history has forced the church to do. The standard line of retreat is to assert that "the realized dimension of the kingdom of God is incomplete apart from the death-resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit" (R. H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus' Teachings, John Knox, 1995, p. 111). Paul would by no means acknowledge to the Corinthians a realized dimension of the kingdom in such terms. And if the ethics of Jesus as expressed in the gospels are sometimes too extreme, they also must be tamed in service of the hermeneutical expedient. "The ethic of Jesus is not an emergency ethic based on the nearness of the end" (Stein, p. 98). Accordingly, whatever does not fit the pre-conceived schema must not be universal ("Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God" Luke 9:60), or is a literary device of hyperbolic overstatement ("If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" Luke 14:26). The multiplication of examples similar to these would only serve to underscore that there is a great deal of data which must be explained away.

Were it not for the fact that a piece of correspondence from Paul to the Christians at Corinth survived to become part of what we call the New Testament, we would know even less about the "sacramental" meal than we already do from the Synoptic gospels. More pointedly, however, were it not for the fact that the Corinthians had written a letter to Paul, which does not survive, asking him a number of questions about a variety of subjects, what we call First Corinthians would not have been written in response in the first place. Far from being everything we need to know to live our lives in Christ, the letters of Paul preserve but a matter of fact glimpse into the thought world of early Christianity.